GTA V and GRID has better damagemodels

  • Thread starter MadsHilde
  • 23 comments
  • 1,495 views
12
Denmark
Denmark
Is it just me or does this game have very unrealistic damagemodels? In real races when someone crashes into the side of your car with 60mph, the car is totalled. But in this game you can go on like nothing happend and the car just got a few scratches and a dent.

I think the old GRID had better damagemodels than this game, also GTA V.
 
Is it just me or does this game have very unrealistic damagemodels? In real races when someone crashes into the side of your car with 60mph, the car is totalled. But in this game you can go on like nothing happend and the car just got a few scratches and a dent.

I think the old GRID had better damagemodels than this game, also GTA V.

Did you set the damage to real?

Although it's not completely real, it's soooooo much better than gta v. Can't remember Grid though...
 
GTA:V has a great damage model as long as you don't upgrade your cars armor, can't compare it to pCARS or GRID as I've never played either
 
I can't say either. I played the Grid demo for a few minutes the driving model was so far from realistic that it turned me off right away and also the rubber band AI was possibly there worst I have saw. My car looked horrible after the first lap but all that damage did not seem to hurt the way it drove.

GTA I played one version some years back for a few minutes. Some one was telling me how great it was but clearly it was not for me. I hated it.

As for totaling a car when being hit at 60mph, that depends on several factors. how heavy are the cars, what was the angle of contact and what was the actual transferred force in the collision. If someone T-Bones you and they are doing 60 mph then the damage is going to be heavy for sure but if you are both doing 60 or close and the angle is slight then there is just going to be dents and scratches, maybe some broken glass.

I haven't paid a lot of attention to the damage model so far in P-Cars but I do have it set to full and I have had my car disabled more than once already.
 
During one race I lost a braking point and I had a minor contact in the car ahead. After that I saw my GT3 water and oil temp raised from 90C to +110C in a couple of laps. The 90C was stable for more than 20 laps. So, IMO it is a way better that GTA V. Just because you don't see the car parts flying all around it doesn't mean that its not a good damage model.
 
Think what a video game can do. Compare it to the competition, ala forza or gran turismo. I believe it is much better than those two. If on PC, compare it to asset to forza or I racing (I've never played those so I don't know how well they do damage)
 
If you were expecting real life levels of damage think again. No game can get to those levels, some games can get close with mods and other methods (GTA's Extreme Damage Mods & editing GTR/rFactor's .plr files). Even then it ain't 100% realistic.
 
I never get bothered by how crappy the damage physics are in sim racers because my goal is to not smash into things, why be rewarded for failure?
 
Believe it or not the damage model in a racing game that most impressed me was the one in the PC version of NFS Porsche Unleashed. The mechanical damage was pretty good and damaged different parts of the car in different ways. You could damage tires, body work, engine, suspension, drivetrain and so on. Different types of parts were even set to damage more easily than others so for example if you added lightweight fenders and/or bumpers the damage was worse when in a collision. The game would not let you total your car to the point that it would not longer move but it would be so heavily damaged in some cases that it cost almost as much to repair as it would to buy a new one.

Considering that game came out 15 years ago it was really very very good and had pretty good physics as well. Definitely the best game NFS has made to date.
 
Is it just me or does this game have very unrealistic damagemodels? In real races when someone crashes into the side of your car with 60mph, the car is totalled. But in this game you can go on like nothing happend and the car just got a few scratches and a dent.

I think the old GRID had better damagemodels than this game, also GTA V.
I'm way more concerned about the physics of damage being properly modeled than the graphics of it. I would accept GT's damage model if it meant that I get all the same damage affecting the car as it does in PCars. Neither of those games come close to modeling the parameters of damage the way PCars does.
 
I never get bothered by how crappy the damage physics are in sim racers because my goal is to not smash into things, why be rewarded for failure?

Because damage and crashes are a major part of racing. I watched the Indy 500 yesterday and just a tiny collision will ruin your race.



In pCars I crashed my Formula Gulf hard into an AI car in front of me. The car flew into the air over me and flipped. My car and the AI car were undamaged and the race continued. Not very immersive.

Even Atari Pole Position had a more realistic damage model. If you came into contact with another car your car blew up. That's more realistic than smashing hard into cars and walls without any damage or minimal damage imo.



It's not just pCars. Forza, GT and almost every racing sim totally ignore realistic damage and crashes.
 
Often to do with licencing...
It is. The main reason you don't see BeamNG physics in games is because big name manufacturers don't want to see their latest models like this:
 
That was exactly my point. Small collisions make loads of debris and bodyparts fly. Almost nothing happens in pCars.
And my point is Ferrari don't want to see their latest models destroyed, virtually or not. To make the damage models the people would, AFAIK, have to damage the cars, and why should Ferrari give PD a 250 GTO just to smash it up for a virtual damage model.
 
Is it just me or does this game have very unrealistic damagemodels? In real races when someone crashes into the side of your car with 60mph, the car is totalled. But in this game you can go on like nothing happend and the car just got a few scratches and a dent.

I think the old GRID had better damagemodels than this game, also GTA V.

GTA is a totally different type of title, as such with totally unlicensed cars and no in depth physics engine (for driving) to worry about its too out of left field to compare.

Now GRID (and for that matter Shift) did have more detailed physics models in terms of things falling off your car and direct DNF's from that, pCars on the other hand has less spectacular damage and more in terms damage then wrecking the car (I have a number of DNF's in pCars from damage to the car resulting in the engine overheating.

Now as far as someone hitting you in the side at 60mph and how much damage it will cause, that depends very much on the angle and type of car.

And my point is Ferrari don't want to see their latest models destroyed, virtually or not. To make the damage models the people would, AFAIK, have to damage the cars, and why should Ferrari give PD a 250 GTO just to smash it up for a virtual damage model.
Nope, not at all, virtual crash testing would do the job perfectly well. No need to actually crash anything.

The vast majority of crash testing these days in simulated (using PAM-Crash for example), with only the final legislative tests done with actual vehicles.

http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/real-or-rendered-honda-conducts-virtual-crash-tests/
http://virtualperformance.esi-group.com/?q=applications-structural-crash

 
Last edited:
My point with GTA was that even THAT game has better damagemodels than a realistic racing simulator. I don't want to crash my cars, but when they do, I expect it to look as spectacular as the rest of the game.

Btw, in the crash i mentioned in my first post, I was T-boned.
 
My point with GTA was that even THAT game has better damagemodels than a realistic racing simulator. I don't want to crash my cars, but when they do, I expect it to look as spectacular as the rest of the game.
And does THAT game (not sure why the capitals are needed - is shouting it needed?) run a driving physics model of anything like the same degree of complexity?

Does THAT game need to worry about the licence agreements it has in place because it uses licensed cars?

That would be no on both those counts, as I mentioned in my original reply, however it now seems that as you have chose to shout THAT game those can't be valid points?

Odd that you chose to utterly ignore the parts in which I agreed with you, or the possible explanations for why this might be the case?
 
Yeah, the capitals weren't needed. Could have used an á as well, as in thát. Not sure if that has the same effect in english as in danish.

But I do find it weird/studpid that it should require licenses from carmanufactures to wreck their cars vitually and make it look realistic. Not saying it ain't so, though.

It just kills some of the immersion in the game for me. I would just have loved if the damagemodels was as realistic as the rest of the game. I mean, often the frontlights won't even shatter when I crash.
 
Yeah, the capitals weren't needed. Could have used an á as well, as in thát. Not sure if that has the same effect in english as in danish.

But I do find it weird/studpid that it should require licenses from carmanufactures to wreck their cars vitually and make it look realistic. Not saying it ain't so, though.
I've worked for a manufacturer and I can totally understand why they would not want it to happen and why they would have the control over it (after all it is a product they have invested billions in), that said they have got a lot more relaxed about it over the years.


It just kills some of the immersion in the game for me. I would just have loved if the damagemodels was as realistic as the rest of the game. I mean, often the frontlights won't even shatter when I crash.
Its not as good as it could or should be, but I have managed to blow around four engines as a result of crash damage and tonight tore a wheel of an Audi R8 following a high speed impact with the barriers.
 
I don't care about spectacular visual damage. I think mechanical damage and aero damage is more important. If you're in an F1 car and you rear end someone even a little your front wing should be damaged.

People drive more carefully when they know a small bump can damage their car.

I don't think this has anything to do with car manufacturers. Most of the cars in pCars are race cars. I think the main issue is that the AI is not good enough to race you clean. So, having realistic damage would make the game unplayable.

But I think it should be an option. This game is highly customizable. Why not let us select damage sensitivity?
 
I find it satisfying to see damage when I make a mistake and sometimes it's a bit underwhelming in this game. Not always, but sometimes heavy impacts with armco just scuffs up the car a little and other times it bashes panels in.
 
Back